Dracula

Dracula is one of the most iconic Universal monster characters of all time. Believed to be inspired by the real-life 15^th century Wallachian Prince, Vlad the Impaler, the titular character of Bram Stoker’s 1897 gothic horror novel has grown in popularity immensely since his creation and is still a classic icon even to this day, appearing in all forms of media including future books, stage-plays, films, games, and even cereal mascots. Although he wasn’t the first vampire-esque figure to grace the silver screen (that being the 1922 silent film, Nosferatu), this 1931 film was not only the first sound film to feature Dracula but was also the movie that led way to immortalizing the way in which the public views the character and the mythos of the vampire world for years to come. A solicitor named Renfield (played by Dwight Frye) travels to Count Dracula’s castle in Transylvania in order to discuss Dracula’s (played famously by Bela Lugosi) intentions to lease a home in England. Unbeknownst to Renfield, Dracula is a vampire who proceeds to bite and turn the unaware man into his servant, then proceeds to travel across the seas to England in order to find more prey to feast on and transform into his own minions. Such hapless victims include Dr Seward (played by Hebert Bunston), his daughter Mina (played by Helen Chandler) and her fiancé John Harker (played by David Manners). Dracula takes particular interest in Mina, having eyed her previously and now wishes to have her join him in the eternal nightly prowling life of a vampire, which is noticed by Polymath Doctor Professor Van Helsing (played by Edward Van Sloan) when he sees Dracula exhibit vampiric qualities like not having a reflection, being driven away by components like a cross and wolfsbane, and from the ramblings of a now possessed Renfield who has been transformed to feast on small living creatures and has now been hospitalized. With the night approaching where Mina could be properly turned, Van Helsing must face Dracula and prevent his plans before more people become victims to his attacks. Being a critical and commercial success, this film acts as a simple introduction to the popular character and makes for a decent atmospheric picture that is equally as unnerving as it is cheesy and awkward.

The movie took aspects from the 1924 stage-play by Hamilton Deana and John L. Balderston (which in turn was inspired by the book), while adding their own touches to make it feel like its own unique thing, and considering what the response was back then, it seems to have done just that, with most critics being satisfied and impressed with the handling of such a famous story. Considering the film’s minimal length by most film standards (being only an hour and fifteen minutes long), its hard to imagine how much story or engagement you could get out of that short amount on time, but the movie does still manage to have a decent set-up, delivery, and execution, never feeling like it’s dragging its feet and wasting time on aspects that aren’t important to showcase. Whether this was a consequence of the fact that the film was made in an older time or if it just came from the source itself, the narrative is heavily truncated from the original story, but keeps the correct beats and mood of the story which results in a very atmospheric story that moreso relies on that element rather than anything dramatically important in the plot or character department. The trajectory of the story is very easy to understand and plays out exactly how you would expect it to, but for the time as well as what kind of movie it is, it provides a reasonably effective sit that knows when to let moments exist for exposition and when moments can be creepy. The film ironically suffers from feeling a little dull in parts mainly due to shrinking down elements of the book to make it more simplified for a film version, with the pacing being a little too slow and meandering in parts and taking its time with its conclusion which doesn’t come with anything that amazingly interesting to end things off on. The director, Todd Browning, was known for working on films of varying genres, but was also a prevalent silent film director, and qualities of that show up in this film, for better or worse. On the one hand, the long silences thanks to no music and the emphasis on facial acting leads to certain moments that can be pretty creepy, but on the other hand, the awkward acting and effects can also mean it feels pretty silly and campy in parts, which is also an element that can be fun when viewed from that mindset, but definitely leaves the film leaning more on that side rather than on genuine horror.

The characters feel like your typical victim fodder for a movie of this caliber, and they mostly play out their parts as would be expected, but thanks to the film’s interesting directing and acting choices, it leaves some of these roles feeling more memorable and distinct than they arguably should be. One element that this film is largely lacking in compared to some of the other now infamous Universal Monster movies was this sense of tragic weight or level of depth that came from the macabre and gothic subject matter, but because this movie and in turn the actors don’t have this quality, they can play their parts a little silly and odd and it doesn’t feel out of place.  If the movie took itself more seriously and created more effective dramatic elements, it might have been a little distracting. The people talk and act in that bizarre manner that was pretty common for actors to speak like in the transition from silent to sound films, and that quality isn’t that much of a distraction in a film like this that clearly has an air of gothic ambiance and horror, but also a slight hint of cheesiness as well. If anything, more of the awkward acting saves some characters that would be nothing without it. Dwight Frye as Renfield, for example, starts off so odd and wooden in the opening section of the film, that its only during the second and third acts where he gets to act crazy, when he becomes legitimately fun to watch even if the performance isn’t necessarily great. The voice is hoaky, his mannerisms are dramatic and full of flair, and he actually does get a few creepy faces that do stay with people once they leave (the shot on the boat when he is discovered is particularly unnerving). Bela Lugosi is pretty well known for playing Dracula and fits nicely back into the role as he had previously portrayed the character in the Broadway version this film is based on. He carries with him that sense of grace and sophistication that’s great for the character, but he also can look imposing and mythic when he shoots those steely eyes at the camera. The character of Dracula is pretty bland and lacking depth in this version, mainly because he’s surprisingly not in the movie very much, but (much like other classic movie monsters), they gain depth with each consecutive film and not so much in their first ones.

The look of the movie with the black and white, the scratchy filter and little unique qualities that came from the old way of making and showcasing films brings an old-fashion quality to it that makes it fun to go back and witness and it proves to be a very great looking film through its set decoration handled by Russell A. Gausman, the cinematography handled by Karl Freund (who also helped co-direct the film uncredited), its production design handled by John Hoffman and Herman Rosse, and its costume design handled by Ed Ware and Vera West. The transition from the cloudy and isolated Castle Dracula to the more civilized and populate, but still fog-covered streets of England make for a spooky atmosphere that makes the movie more unnerving and off-putting in parts rather than actually being scary, but it clearly has the presentation that worked for a film of the era and has nostalgic enjoyment for viewers of nowadays. The film’s lack of a musical score works nicely in some moments where the suspense can build and it can lead to an off-putting visual, but overall, the long gaps of silence start to become more frequent and it ironically ruins certain moments because of some parts being more goofy than creepy, and the utter silence and slow movements of the actors makes it funnier than anything else.

Dracula as a film is sadly not as strong as some of the other popular Universal Monster films, with it lacking a sense of tragic importance and small but meaningful depth that brings a hint more of a long-lasting impression on its audience than without it, but  the other examples do have their own shortcomings as well, so this isn’t that much of a hindrance. The film still has good atmosphere, fun acting and a old fashion quality that makes it an enjoyably goofy movie to watch on Halloween rather than something to get you shaking and unable to sleep. Considering Dracula is still as famous an icon as he is, it shows that the character had staying power and the ability to grow from what he originally was presented as, so there’s clearly more life left in this walking creature of the night, and this original film is a decent taster for what he would grow to be.